But he wouldn't be Pope if that happened, he'd be a bishop of Rome without Papal supremacy
First, and that's quite important to point on this question, labelling the non-Nicean beliefs the Goths had between the IVth and the VIth century as Arianism is definitely misleading. Generally "Homeism" is preferred, as a softcore equivalent of Arianism, which never really worked in Romania (in imperial and post-imperial times).What if the Ostrogoths did not converted to catholicism, and instead placed a arian pope in Rome and for some butterfly the byzantine empire did not reconquered italy during Justinian reign, could Arian christianity became the "normal" christianity?
Not this : the political and religious role of the Roman pontiff was, altough really limited from what he was with Byzantine, Frankish and eventually medieval Papacy, real.This^
The simplest solution is the Council of Nicaea (324) itself as a POD.First, and that's quite important to point on this question, labelling the non-Nicean beliefs the Goths had between the IVth and the VIth century as Arianism is definitely misleading. Generally "Homeism" is preferred, as a softcore equivalent of Arianism, which never really worked in Romania (in imperial and post-imperial times).
The distinction is important : Homeism was far less radically distinct from Nicean beliefs (at the point that when one switched side, it wasn't considered as a conversion, and didn't required a baptism) : in fact, it was purposely vague about dogmatic issues, and eventually relatively compatible with Niceanism (with an increasing mix with Orthodox beliefs with time, would it be only because Barbarians could switch to Niceanism to Homeism or the reverse : see Suevi or Burgundians).
At the moment Romano-Barbarian kingdoms, as successor of Roman imperium, are stabilized, the main part of the population was (including and critically Roman elites, which giving the role Counts and Bishops had in the Vth century was certainly important) Orthodox Nicean and not Homean.
What prevented Homeism to disappear relatively late IOTL (around the VIIth century) was that it was considered as an identitarian feature marking "Barbarity" (and even there, political events played fully : Alaric II religious policy hints at tentatives of "union"). Barbarians were indeed strongly romanized since the Late Empire, and underwent several identitarian features (such as law, weapons or even clothes) to distinguish themselves from Romans. More the population became a mix between Roman and Barbarian features, more it became irrelevant.
You definitely need a much earlier PoD, with Romans emperors not switching back to favour Niceanism as they did IOTL in the late IVth century (Goths did converted to Homeism because it was favoured, at this time, by the imperial court)
Of course, but then you might not have a clear distinction : "hardline" Arianism wasn't really in a good position to win over the council, and IMO, you might just end with an in-between between Niceanism and Homeism. It depends, eventually, if the OP asks for a different vibe of Orthodoxy, of if he wants something distinguished (as clearly distinct is rather out) from it to eventually win over in spite of the Council.The simplest solution is the Council of Nicaea (324) itself as a POD.
Of course, but then you might not have a clear distinction : "hardline" Arianism wasn't really in a good position to win over the council, and IMO, you might just end with an in-between between Niceanism and Homeism.
I was myself rather thinking at, possibly, a timely death of Theodosius which would allow Valentinian II to undergo his religious policies, with Arbogast and the western armies having maybe more reasons to support an Homeist emperor rather than your average traditionalist as Eugenius.
But there is probably more PoDs than that to save imperial Homeism.
Sounds good. I've not heard the term Homeism before. What's the derivation? Nicaea would have made it all too easy.Of course, but then you might not have a clear distinction : "hardline" Arianism wasn't really in a good position to win over the council, and IMO, you might just end with an in-between between Niceanism and Homeism. It depends, eventually, if the OP asks for a different vibe of Orthodoxy, of if he wants something distinguished (as clearly distinct is rather out) from it to eventually win over in spite of the Council.
I was myself rather thinking at, possibly, a timely death of Theodosius which would allow Valentinian II to undergo his religious policies, with Arbogast and the western armies having maybe more reasons to support an Homeist emperor rather than your average traditionalist as Eugenius.
But there is probably more PoDs than that to save imperial Homeism.
No idea. Maybe, but I'm not sure there, a later adoption of Christianisation : Constantine more or less took the matter into his hands and transformed a local council into something much bigger, siding with non-arianists because they were the lesser damage to religious unity.Ok, so what PoD is needed to have Hardline arianism to be the main christian sect?
It comes from Homoìos (similar), as its followers proclaimed that Christ was similar to God, without digging too much into the matter, and bit more focused on Bible rather than tradition (altough I wonder how much it was true for Goths from the Vth onwards, giving the synodal needs).Sounds good. I've not heard the term Homeism before. What's the derivation? Nicaea would have made it all too easy.
A Germanized Hunnic Empire which uses the Gothic alphabet establishes itself in Europe. Franks and Anglo-Saxons also convert to Arian Christianity.What if the Ostrogoths did not converted to catholicism, and instead placed a arian pope in Rome and for some butterfly the byzantine empire did not reconquered italy during Justinian reign, could Arian christianity became the "normal" christianity?